Compensation for pool closing

If 80% of the community has their own pool, and votes to change the covenants and close the community pool, do the other 20%, who do not have pools and who did not vote for closure, have any right to compensation? Those 20%, without any pool, now will see a real loss in value to their properties.

Lets assume my property is worth less without a community pool-- its kind of obvious. The issue, instead, is a legal one. Could, for example, the community vote to allow only those with an even house number access to a community pool-- and then not compensate those with odd house numbers? Its the same question -- yes, the community can change the covenants, but do they also have a responsibility and liability to compensate for those advesely affected?

Some more info if interested:

Neighborhood Section of the Appraisal Report from Fannie Mae

6 Things You Think Add Value To Your Home - But Really Don't from Investopedia

Real Estate Appraisal

FHA Appraisal: No Value given for Inground Pool from a property appraiser forum

how much value *approximately* does an inground pool add? from a pool owners forum

As you can see, value of a pool in the home or in the community is subjective.

Remember too that in most associations, the main or only source of income is member dues. Where do you think any compensation would come from? Should the association raise everybody's dues by $1000 so that they can all get $1000 compensation?

As far as treating homes without pools differently than homes with pools, I can't see any justification that would pass any kind of legal muster.

I agrees those who say that your home has lost no value. I know that our pool is very expensive to maintain not just on a weekly basic, but the electricity to run its pumps, etc., water, and the gas to heat it (year 'round) in our moderate climate. We also set aside quite a bit in reserves to resurface it, to replace the coping that surrounds it, the rails, the wiring that goes to the required lights & the light themselves, etc. A few years ago, we had to replace the drain covers due to new legislation.

We also reserve for the required fence that surrounds it and the two gates seem to need a lot of maintenance.

Will your HOA's insurance go down a bit now that/once it's gone? there are others expenses that I've forgotten about.

I suppose that you & others who wanted to keep it could calculate your annual a operating budget & reserves account savings without the pool and politely ask the board to give all Owners an annual or one-time refund from your dues because of the savings. Not sure it'd be worth your trouble to calculate....

So let owners who must have a pool eat those expenses.

Will whatever replaces it cost as much to maintain? Might it enhance your HOA overall?

When I was a realtor many years ago, the standard belief in the industry was that pools do not inherently add value to a property. Too many buyers want nothing to do with them & their hassles & expenses.

DavidL33, significant HOA case law exists on the subject of the validity of amendments to a HOA's governing documents. This case law often addresses a tyranny by a majority against a minority. I would say this is very much the case in your situation. Courts generally have decreed that amendments have to be uniform (not picking on just one member, say) and reasonable. Even if a vote to amend was done properly, the courts have thrown out such amendments under some circumstances. The result is that case law has established safeguards against tyranny by a majority.

I do not think you have a uniformity argument. This is because all members now lack use of the HOA pool (or soon will). The amendment is "uniform" in its treatment of members. But to me, the reasonableness of the amendment is in question. Here are some real life examples that might help your processing of your situation:

-- a developer who built a golf course; sold condos surrounding the golf course; and then suddenly decides to eliminate the golf course went to court and was ordered not to eliminate the golf course.

-- a vast HOA whose covenants provided for maintenance of all the subdivision's roads but then amended its covenants to deny maintenance for some of the roads in the more remote areas went to court and, at least at the appeals court level, did not prevail.

-- From Griffin v. Tall Timbers (Mississippi, 1996): "Applying a reasonableness standard to a regulation, this Court will consider not only the rights of the individual owner, but also the rights of the other association members who expect maintenance in keeping with the general plan. . . ." Id. The purpose of balancing these considerations is to ensure that the strength of the association is maintained and the expectations and purpose are not frustrated, while also ensuring that no individual property owner or class of owners is unduly and unexpectedly burdened for the benefit of others in the association. See https://casetext.com/case/griffin-v-tall-timbers-development

-- From Worthinglen Owners Association v. Brown (Ohio, 1989): "The second question is whether the decision or rule is discriminatory or evenhanded. This may sound like a `constitutional' consideration applicable only in case of `state action,' see Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), 334 U.S. 1, but we believe it protects against the imposition by a majority of a rule or decision reasonable on its face, in a way that is unreasonable and unfair to the minority because its effect is to isolate and discriminate against the minority. It provides a safeguard against a tyranny of the majority." See https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3978102/worthinglen-owners-assn-v-brown/

The one thing on which I do tend to agree with the others here is the issue of how this affects your home's value. If you have a study on the point, great. If not, then I think you are better off arguing that this amendment infringes on your rights to enjoyment of the HOA in an unreasonable way. You bought into the HOA expecting to have a pool to use. Like the golf course lawsuit above, now the pool is not there. If I were the referee, I just might see fit to call, "Foul." You could go to court and maybe end up with a settlement for having to give up your enjoyment of the HOA pool.

It would not surprise me to learn there have been lawsuits specifically over HOAs eliminating pools.

I live in a townhouse community and our community voted to close the pool about five years ago. The property value question was one reason previous boards hesitated to close the pool, but as expenses for the pool and everything else went up, along with foreclosures (which occurred for a number of other reasons), the board decided something had to give.

As part of the argument we presented to the community for closing, we noted that we'd asked a few realtors that same question - everyone said the value question was subjective, but it probably wouldn't make a huge difference to our community because the number of foreclosures were the bigger issue.

In the end, the vast majority of homeowners voted to close the pool and while I was on the board, no one ever came to us complaining the house didn't sell or sell for the price they wanted because the pool was gone. Actually, it had become an eyesore (it was an in ground pool) and most everyone was glad to see it go.

In your community 80% of the homes already have their own pools, so it seems to me if you think that's critical to your property values, you need to install your own pool. If you're willing to pay the costs of maintenance and insurance, you can put in whatever type is best for your budget. Then you can see if that makes a difference if/when you sell your home. Otherwise, this is life in a HOA - sometimes you win and sometimes not.

You are in South Carolina which has very limited HOA laws: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/218.htm

Your answer is going to be found most likely in your CCR's which we cannot view unless you post sections for us to review for opinion only with regards to what is stated compared to our documents and experience ... as we are not attorneys. In essence depends on what your documents state with regards to your pool. Is it stated as a required benefit, is it noted as a benefit affecting property value, etc?